Biro

100% agreed. 'Everything else' makes for lively discussion, but you just do not part with any serious money for anything other than issue and textbook. This PLM falls smack bang into the 'Everything else' catagory IMO... No thanks. Marshall

Yes this is the 'glowing 9th bead' cross..... ...and therefore, not one for me. The hybrid "is it an I is it a J"? version of the maker mark is also contentious to say the least... if you want a Wagner piece Kevin (and they are EXTREMELY scarce) then my suggestion would be you find one with a mark exactly like this... [attachmentid=45738] Alternatively, Weitze has a beautiful Godet, but wants a little too much for it. JMO.. Marshall

Very nice Werner button! Anyone else notice the placement of the 'date and W' on the Werner EK? Marshall

Extremely interesting David! To date, I have only seen this type - the most attractively designed spange out there IMO - as either unmarked 1st patterns or L/12 marked standard patterns - but never an L/12 marked 1st pattern! Here's what I mean - these two examples belong to Gordon W (I beleive) and Bob Hritz respectively. [attachmentid=44388] We currently assume that the unmarked 1st patterns of the style you posted are made by Juncker because genuine marked examples of the standard pattern bare such an uncanny stylistic resemblance - the only real differences being the date bar and the breast feathers. Although the L/12 could have been added later, I personally would like to think that you have an example of a very rare missing link that consolidates the maker of this style of spangen as Juncker. Nice - I want it! Marshall

Gordon Just to complicate things.. I have found WILM marked crosses with two different cores - the one I know you own (which isn't shown in this thread) and this type below. I don't beleive the one you posted first is a WILM either ... from the core, or the partial maker mark. Interestingly, the WILM I own has a matching core to the one on the right of your post #6, and yet another variation of the mark on the small eyelet!! No help I know ... but fun! Marshall [attachmentid=44385]

Dan The maker will be difficult with the photo's provided.. a little on the blurry side.. The value? - appx. 40 euros. Nice thing Tom did there. Good luck with your display. Marshall

Nice Joe.. Is it one piece? Marshall

If the piece Micha posted is a genuine 30's example (and the use of a Gebruder and not J Godet mark would fit that time frame) this would be a first EVER on an EK1... wouldn't it? The only 'Gebr Godet' marks I've ever seen have been super elaborate affairs of dubious authenticity on 1870 buttonhole EK's like this one... [attachmentid=42277] ...so there is probably no reference point for this particular marking which is always cause for concern.... Marshall

Brian The cross on the right is the only WW1 example that can be 100% accredited to Godet. I know of no other core appearing on a 'correctly' marked WW1 Godet. It may not be fake, but it's not a Godet as we know it. [attachmentid=42276]

Wondering also what era you guys would place this one in the scheme of things... Marshall [attachmentid=41788]

Tony J has asked me to add a picture of his example to this thread, so here it is. It remains one of the nicest 1813 EK2's I've seen... M [attachmentid=41637]

Tony J has asked me to post his 1914 prinzen, so here it is... I would agree Tony J and Toby R have the same type of prinzens. Here's Tony's... also on an Austrian trifold ribbon, but cropped to show more detail. M [attachmentid=41634]

Thanks Micha - great photo's and superb comparisons. I really am convinced the obverse (and I'm talking frame and core) of your 'Gebr Godet' is good, but the back has been substantially messed with. Rather than 'fake' I would suggest 'tampered with'... to the point where it is worth very little... Hi Mike No - I have no problem with fat crowns in general. After seeing so many being offered recently, I decided to try and educate myself and began checking all the 'fat crown' photo's I could find to see how the unmarked versions could be positively linked back to someone like Deumer who - along with S&L - is one of the main protagonists in the 'fat crown' area. Like I said, this between wars period is not a strong point for me - I have been unable to find a good picture of an L/11 marked TR era 1914 EK1 where I can make out the detail of the date, but maybe either you or Micha can help out. There is a fairly distinctive feature appearing regularly on the oval section to the '9' in the date of many 'fat crowns', which I can only describe as looking rather like an 'upside down keyhole' - the pic below of various unmarked examples should illustrate what I mean. [attachmentid=40546] If it can be positively identified as also appearing on the core of L/11 marked T/R era versions of the 1914 EK1, then I think we have another definite feature to link these cores to Deumer for the unmarked versions whose manufacturer we cannot really be certain of. Whether 'fat crown' 1914's are indeed 20's, 30's or even WW2 era is a slightly greyer area - for me anyway -in many cases clues are offered in the pin and hinge construction as you know, but it's not conclusive. This 1939 Deumer catalogue picture hints that certainly at the very beginning of WW2, 'fat crowns' were the Deumer style offered for these 1914 replacements whose frames were NOT of Third Reich proportions... [attachmentid=40550] It would certainly be interesting to hear from anyone who can fill this between wars gap in my education! Marshall

Here ya go Bob - a slightly crusty ...OK, very crusty Godet non-com.... Marshall

Hi Micha We all know and accept the back of your's is totally bogus... but every time I see one of these 'fat' and very distinctive crowns such as the one posted first, someone pipes up and claims 20's or 30's production. It's an era I know only a little about, and I - like the rest of you - am seeing more and more of them on ebay. So again - how does the core (not the frame or reverse) of your bad 'Godet' compare to the one I posted in #15... and indeed, to the core of your own 'flawed' clamshell EK1 that you've theorised may be a Deumer. http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=3087&hl=Deumer Or this one of Jans.. [attachmentid=40317] Thanks mate Marshall

Most definitely not a Godet core - and the back is horrible.... but how does the core compare to the apparently 'postwar' one in this older thread Micha? - http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=6...indpost&p=60931 Marshall [attachmentid=40167] [attachmentid=40168]

Hi Claudio This is the area that appeared to exhibit a flaw - and as EK hunter has said, absolutely no problem with this - it means nothing - it's simply a point of interest for me. [attachmentid=39995] While we're at it - if you check the corner junctions on the beading of mine below, particularly the two central ones, you'll see - even with the heavy wear to both our frames - why I think the beading on mine may indeed match yours. The cores - as you can see - are different and the rims also different widths. As the frame rim is integral to the beading, one would assume that the frame on mine was hand finished down from a wide rim to a narrow rim. Perhaps someone else has some input. [attachmentid=39996] I'm sure there is a clue here somewhere as to the respective dates of each of our EK's - one could also assume that if our beading matched and yours is flawed and mine not, that yours is a little later than mine but I'm afraid I don't know enough about the construction methods from this era (does anyone?) to answer that. A lovely piece regardless. Welcome to the club! Marshall

An excellent example Claudio - congratulations. There appears to be some minor flawing to the beading on yours - is that so? Wonderfull condition and a great addition. Incidentally, I have a similar piece - the type shown in the centre on page 36 - 37 of the Iron Time. It has the date without the feet at the base of the '1's... so the core is different - but interestingly, although my frame is also narrower, the beading I would swear is identical to yours. Also dated at circa 1820 by Niemann. I think for the most part, an 1815 - 1830 time frame is about as accurate as we can guess for these pieces whose frames are not of multi-part construction. For sure it is not 1st batch. Well done. Marshall

Call me a philistine, but I actually rather like the look of that enamelled frame! Technically of course, it's ruined - but considering the miniscule price of a 1914 ek2, I'd be tempted to leave it just as it is.... Nice score Paul. Marshall

Congratulations Dan - looks a nice one. Hairline cracks is par for the course with these... Well done. Marshall

Thanks fellas... M.

Hi fellas Can anyone who has experience with Thiess's auctions answer the following question? If an item listed in his current (April) auction does not appear as sold on his 'aktuelles' page, was it... A - unsold or B - could be sold, but just not listed as sold ....and would it still be available? I realise unsold consignment pieces would probably be returned to the owner - but I don't know how Thiess works... many thanks marshall

Deumer...

What's good enough for those sea-boys is also good enough for the land-locked!!

These are well known and very bad repros Kevin. This should help you out ... http://cgi.ebay.de/Eisernes-Kreuz-1-Klasse...1QQcmdZViewItem and... http://cgi.ebay.de/Eisernes-Kreuz-1870-mit...1QQcmdZViewItem and... http://cgi.ebay.de/Eisernes-Kreuz-1870-1-K...1QQcmdZViewItem regards Marshall